Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goetzel v. State

Supreme Court of Wyoming

December 4, 2017

DARREL DAVID GOETZEL, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

         Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County The Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge

          Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Westling.

          Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; Christyne M. Martens, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Darrell D. Jackson, Director, Saige N. Smith, Student Director, Prosecution Assistance Program, University of Wyoming, College of Law. Argument by Ms. Smith.

          Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, and FOX, JJ., and SULLINS, D.J.

          BURKE, CHIEF JUSTICE.

         [¶1] Appellant, Darrel Goetzel, challenges the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We conclude that res judicata bars his claim, and affirm.

         ISSUES

         [¶2] The issue presented by Appellant is whether the district court erred in denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State raises a separate issue: Does res judicata bar Appellant from bringing this claim?

         FACTS

         [¶3] While being booked on various charges at the Goshen County Detention Center, Appellant hit the officer in charge, who fell to the floor. Appellant then kicked him in the head, causing severe injuries to the officer. Appellant used the officer's radio to ask for the door to be unlocked. The door was opened, and he fled from the facility, taking the radio with him. He was apprehended six days later in Nebraska. Following his arrest, Appellant was charged with felony interference with a peace officer, felony escape, and felony larceny. About six weeks later, in a separate docket, Appellant was charged with the additional crimes for which he had originally been arrested. Those crimes included possession of a controlled substance, felony larceny, two counts of burglary, and four counts of forgery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State dismissed several of the charges and Appellant pled guilty to burglary, forgery, felony larceny, felony escape, and felony interference with a peace officer. The district court accepted the guilty pleas, and on July 26, 2011, sentenced Appellant to a significant prison term. Appellant did not appeal the district court's decision.

         [¶4] In 2012, Appellant filed a motion for sentence reduction. The motion was denied. In 2015, Appellant filed a motion for sentence modification. This motion was also denied. Appellant did not present a double jeopardy claim in any of the motions, and did not appeal any of the district court orders denying the motions.

         [¶5] In 2016, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. Specifically, Appellant challenged the sentences he received for two crimes: a nine to ten-year sentence for felony interference with a peace officer, and a consecutive nine to ten-year sentence for felony escape. He claimed that the two sentences should have merged under double jeopardy principles because "the exact same conduct perpetrated against the same officer" was used to prove both crimes. The district court denied the motion. Appellant challenges that ruling on appeal.

         DISCUSSION

         [¶6] Appellant claims that, under principles of double jeopardy, his sentences for felony escape and felony interference with a peace officer should have merged. The State asserts that Appellant's claim is barred by res judicata. Because the State's issue is potentially dispositive, we consider it first. Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.